SUPERVENING EVENT. - In the analogous case of ANANIAS SOCO and FILEMON SOCO vs. COURT
OF APPEALS and CLEMENTE L. SANTIAGO, G.R. No. 116013 October 21, 1996, the issue was: “When may a new fact,
supervening event or circumstance justify the modification or non-enforcement
of a final and executory judgment?”
In that
case, the assailed Decision a quo of decision
in MTC Civil Case as affirmed by the RTC had already become final and executory. The Supreme Court held that indeed in this
jurisdiction “the general rule is when a court's judgment or order becomes
final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to issue a
writ of execution to enforce this judgment”. It added, though, that “a writ of execution may however
be refused on equitable grounds as when there is a change in the situation of
the parties that would make execution inequitable or when certain circumstances
which transpired after judgment became final, render execution of judgment
unjust.”
